DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 8/24/2026.
Claims 1, 6, 9, 14, 21, and 23-26 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-14 and 21-26 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
All references listed in the IDS documents dated 8/24/2026 and 9/22/2026 have been considered.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Claim Interpretation
At the head of Applicant’s 101 arguments, Applicant presents arguments related to the previous interpretations of particular claim language as contingent limitations of method claims (a separate issue from the previous 101 rejections). Applicant’s arguments here are in part correct and in part incorrect. The “continuously monitoring…” functionality pulled out of the previously identified claim language and newly amended as a separate function is now an active step that always occurs, and as such is no longer contingent. However, the originally identified claim limitation from which this language was pulled remains contingent for the same reasons previously explained (ie: as claimed no such indication of a device as “in use” need occur).
While Applicant’s present Remarks do not address the feature of Claim 23 also found to recite contingent limitations of a method claim, the present claim amendments appear to attempt to address this regardless. This attempt is unsuccessful, as the light redrafting present in Claim 23 remains just as contingent as presently drafted.
See previous and presently updated Claim Interpretation sections for more information.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The present amendments to the claims obviate the previous 112(b) rejections of Claims 21 and 25, as well as the previous 112(d) rejections of Claims 24 and 26; therefore, these rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 analysis have been considered and are unpersuasive.
Regarding Step 2A, Prong One, Applicant presents various arguments that particular claim limitations do not recite the abstract categories of mental processes and mathematical concepts, respectively. As a preliminary matter, these arguments entirely ignore the additionally recited category of certain methods of organizing human activity. As such, even if Applicant’s arguments against the other two enumerated categories of abstract idea were persuasive (which, to be clear, they are not – see below), the claims would nonetheless recite abstract ideas under the Prong One analysis.
Regarding the category of mental processes, Applicant argues that particular limitations, which Examiner notes is a far cry from all limitations previously and presently found to recite mental processes (and thus again, even if these arguments were persuasive, which to be clear they are not, the claims would still recite abstract ideas under the Prong One analysis), cannot “practically” be performed in the human mind, citing to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). Despite quoting from this subsection of the MPEP, Applicant’s argument misapprehends what “practically” means in the context of this analysis. As noted by Applicant, this subsection specifies that claims do not recite a mental process “when they do not contain limitations what can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform claim limitations.” As is clear from this language and the remainder of this subsection, including the various examples listed therein, a limitation is not practically performable in the human mind when the human mind is not equipped to grasp, manipulate, and analyze the recited information in the manner claimed. This does not apply to the presently drafted claims in the manner Applicant seemingly believes.
Regarding the argued “continuously monitoring…” step, what the claim recites is the continuously monitoring of a communication request to exchange information from the variously recited shipped electronic devices. There is nothing here which is not perceptible and performable in the human mind. The mere computer performance of this step does not make this otherwise, including in relation to digital communications, as illustrated by myriad pieces of caselaw (see, e.g., Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016), Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 2018), SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 127 U.S.P.Q.2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2018), Beteiro, LLC v. DraftKings, Inc., 104 F.4th 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2024), etc.). Applicant’s attempted analogy to the limitation of the SRI case listed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) is not well taken. That both relate to monitoring in a computer environment does not render the argued limitation analogous for Prong One purposes. There is a wide gulf between the capabilities of a human mind to monitor for requests to exchange information (a relatively simple process which could be considered mere observation) and to monitor for suspicious activity using network monitors and analyzing network packets (involving data analyses of which the human mind is not capable).
Regarding the argued “wherein the identifying, the comparing, and the assigning are performed concurrently for at least five hundred electronic devices of the first plurality of electronic devices within a time period of thirty minutes,” this argument again misapprehends the meaning of “practically” in the Prong One analysis. Numbers of iterations and arbitrarily imposed timeframes are not what is indicated by “practically,” and indeed are not a consideration of Prong One at all. What is present in this limitation does not speak to practical possibility (ie: what the human mind is capable of performing), but instead speaks to the scalability of the invention. Here, Applicant is essentially arguing that because a computer is capable of performing this step faster/more efficiently, this step does not recite a mental process, something which flies in the face of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) (entitled, “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”). Indeed, this notion of the increased speed and efficiency of performing a step via computer implementation as opposed to manually is ineffective at all stages of the 101 subject matter eligibility analysis (covered in greater detail below in relation to Step 2A, Prong Two arguments). This explanation applies to the expanded numbers of electronic devices found in presently-amended Claim 14, as well as any other hypothetically amended numbers of devices or provided timeframes.
Regarding the category of mathematical concepts, Applicant presents nothing more than unexplained conclusory statements, which do not constitute proper arguments. Particularly regarding the assertion that “[c]omparing an elapsed time interval to a threshold and taking no action based on the result is not a mathematical relationship or calculation within the meaning of the ‘Mathematical Concepts’ grouping,” Examiner disagrees. Indeed, this embedded comparison of a time interval against a threshold is so foundationally mathematical in nature (ie: as a mathematical relationship and calculation) that Examiner as at a loss as to how Applicant could possibly reach this conclusion or reasonably argue otherwise.
Applicant next presents arguments related to the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis. As a preliminary matter, regarding the statement that “[t]he Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B arguments that follow are independent of the foregoing Prong One analysis and do not depend on its outcome,” this statement fundamentally misapprehends the standards of Steps 2A, Prong Two and 2B, as the analyses thereof are foundationally based upon the Step 2A, Prong One analysis. Particularly, what limitations are found to recite judicial exceptions (e.g., abstract ideas, as in the present invention) and what limitations are found to recite additional elements is of critical importance to the performance of both Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B. Examiner’s answers to these arguments below are in view of this reality, rather than Applicant’s erroneous statement above.
Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application by way of reflecting an improvement to a technology. As has now been pointed out to Applicant in multiple previous Office Actions, MPEP 2106.05(a) states that an improvement to technology is “a technological solution to a technological problem,” and further that “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” Applicant points to Paragraph 0003 of the present application’s specification as purportedly “identif[ying] the technical problem:” “it is difficult and time consuming to determine and keep abreast of the use of the devices, including which employee has each device, whether that employee is actively using the device, and, if the employee does not have the device, the physical location of the device. Requesting that employees provide information regarding use of their devices can reduce productivity and may have limited results. … it is difficult and time consuming to track the physical locations and/or statuses of devices…when dealing with thousands of devices.” However, this is not in fact a technical problem as argued by Applicant, but rather a commercial/managerial problem. That the claims identify this problem in relation to electronic devices does not make this otherwise as this is not a problem related to the functioning of such electronic devices but rather keeping track of them; this problem would apply equally to any shipped item or piece of equipment distributed to an employee.
Likewise, the solution pointed to by Applicant in these arguments (essentially, real-time and concurrent monitoring of communications indicating receipt/usage of “a very large number of electronic devices within a very short period of time to ensure the device statuses are up to date”) is similarly an entirely abstract solution, which is merely automated by way of computer implementation as claimed. As has also been previously pointed out to Applicant, mere automation of a manual process is insufficient to show such an improvement (see Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) and LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Particularly in relation to the repeatedly argued scalability of this invention to the seemingly arbitrarily identified “very large number of devices” and “very short time period” (as claimed in the independent claims, 500 devices within 30 minutes) as applies to the consideration of an improvement to a technology, as noted above Applicant is arguing the improved speed and efficiency of performing this process via computer implementation as compared to doing so manually. ’[C]laiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer’ does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The also-argued continued cloaking of these abstract concepts in technological language, e.g., emitting signals, does nothing to make this otherwise, as this continues to constitute mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (e.g., use of computers as tools to perform abstract ideas) under the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the separate but intertwined as argued feature of performing these communication exchanges via an existing application which “require no additional/separate programs or applications to be installed on the device and/or user interactions to obtain device connectivity heartbeat/state information,” Applicant is reiterating an argument previously advanced in the Remarks of 2/05/2026 and refuted in the Final Rejection of 3/17/2026. Though the claim language related to this argument is presently expanded (ie: “without any application other than the at least one existing application being installed on the electronic device for provision of the signal”), this argument remains untrue and unpersuasive as previously explained. See said Final Rejection for more information. To further clarify this point, Examiner notes that what Applicant describes here, effectuating digital communications with electronic devices via an existing application without the need for installation of some nebulous “any application other than the at least one existing application,” is so commonplace in electronic devices of all kinds well-prior to Applicant’s 2024 effective filing date that no person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably recognize this as an improvement to a technology as of said effective filing date. Any number of singular applications existing well-prior to said effective filing date likewise perform digital communications via a singular application installed on a computing device without the need of other applications in the same way as presently disclosed and argued (e.g., Uber, Lyft, Discord, WhatsApp, essentially any social media application, essentially any application with an API, etc., to say nothing of basic communications applications which come pre-installed on any electronic device which effectuate communication protocols such as SMS, RCS, email, etc.). Indeed, this is an improvement over the prior art, but rather a standard and ubiquitous feature of the prior art at and in fact long before Applicant’s effective filing date. That Applicant has chosen to use this well-worn technique in the particular field of use of the present invention does not represent a technical improvement over that which existed at the time of filing.
Regarding several other features tied into this argument though lacking in explanation as to what they have to do with the overall contention of an improvement to a technology are ineffective for this purpose. For example, the gathering and updating of statuses, action or inaction based upon such statuses, and “time-elapsed comparison” are all abstract ideas rather than additional elements, and thus cannot integrate themselves into a practical application.
Applicant’s tenuous attempt at analogizing to Example 40 of the PEG is no more persuasive here than as made above in relation to the SRI case. That both the present application and Example 40 recite electronic monitoring of data does not indicate that the present invention improves a technology in the same or similar manner as in Example 40. The particular technological sequence of steps outlined in Claim 1 of Example 40 were found eligible because they effectuated an improvement to a technology (ie: “the method limits collection of additional Netflow protocol data to when the initially collected data reflects an abnormal condition, which avoids excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network performance. The collected data can then be used to analyze the cause of the abnormal condition”). By contrast, Applicant’s argued “limit[ing] the elapsed-time comparison and status assignment to devices whose current status indicates they are delivered or being shipped but not yet in use” is an entirely abstract endeavor, which Applicant happens to have claimed as being effectuated by computer implementation. This does not improve a technology (e.g., network security, as in Example 40) in any way.
Further, it is unclear what is intended by Applicant’s language “while suppressing further processing for devices already identified as actively in use,” but if this is intended to reference the claimed inactive status assignment/requirement of follow up only for devices which have not been indicated as in use after a threshold amount of time from the delivery date, this likewise is an entirely abstract endeavor rather than a technological improvement. There is no logical reason to follow up on the status of an item which has already been indicated as delivered and in use, and the computer-based “resource-conserving” achieved in performing this status change/follow up only for those items delivered but not yet in use directly translates to the time and effort saved when performing this same limited status change/follow up manually. This is not an improvement to a technology, but rather a further cloaking of an abstract improvement in technological language.
Regarding Applicant’s argument against the previously cited Credit Acceptance Corp. and LendingTree cases, Applicant in one breath attempts to differentiate them by stating “[t]hose cases concern performing the same manual steps on a generic computer,” then indicating that the present invention likewise functions by way of no more than generic computers: “[t]he claims require that no monitoring application be installed on the tracked devices and that status be derived from signals that ordinary use already produces.” In other words, the monitoring requires no more than the standard capabilities of any generic computer. Applicant’s further and repeated arguments regarding the scale of this monitoring have already been addressed above.
Applicant’s arguments against the previous characterization of delivery receipt verification, while in part accurate in that it is not just confirmation of delivery receipt but also confirmation of usage of the delivered object that is sought, does not change the abstract nature of the improvement. This is particularly true based on the manner in which this status information is gathered: monitoring for requests to exchange information indicative of such usage. Despite Applicant’s arguments to the contrary, which merely argue the claimed computer-automation of this manual process, this indeed does constitute an improvement to an abstract idea for which computers are merely used as tools of effectuation.
Regarding Step 2B, Applicant reiterates the same existing application-based argument advanced previously and addressed previously and further above. As explained, despite Applicant’s implication to the contrary here, this indeed does reflect an exceedingly commonplace arrangement of additional elements. Applicant’s own argument supports this by stressing the capabilities of generic computing devices, without the need for additional installed applications. As the prior art does not indicate that such additional applications need be installed to effectuate such digital communications between electronic devices, what Applicant is describing here is not an inventive concept but rather merely the state of the art well-prior to Applicant’s effective filing date. Further, Applicant misapprehends the well-understood, routine, and conventional consideration of Step 2B, including when and to what it applies. A finding that an element or combination of elements is well-understood, routine, and conventional is only required for claim elements categorized as additional elements and further sub-categorized as insignificant extra-solution activity (see, e.g., the Step 2B analyses of Example 46, Claim 1 of the October 2019 PEG Update, and of Example 47, Claim 2 and Example 48, Claim 1 of the July 2024 PEG Update). No limitation as presently amended or indeed at any point in the prosecution of this application thus far has been so-categorized. As such, no finding of well-understood, routine, and conventional activity need be articulated in the rejection of these claims (including based on the Berkheimer-type evidence noted by Applicant in relation to MPEP 2106.07(a)), though even if this was not the case (which, to be clear, it is), Applicant’s own arguments here and citations to the specification indicating that the monitoring of the electronic devices requires no more than the basics found in a generic computing device without the need for installation of additional applications or programs would constitute “an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution.”
Lastly, Applicant’s reference to DDR Holdings, quoting language of MPEP 2106.07(a) that “the courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic” is not well-taken, as no such non-generic functions are to be found in the claims. Regarding the specific computer implementation of the variously recited abstract ideas, the effectuation thereof requires no more than the most basic and ubiquitous functions of any generic computing device: processing, storing, and transmitting/receiving data. This is a far cry from the modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage in DDR Holdings.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 9, both of which constitute method claims, each contain the following limitation: “wherein the identification of the current status that is indicative of the electronic device being actively in use by the user is performed based upon the continuous monitoring by the client distributed server.” This constitutes a contingent limitation of a method claim, and thus is not given patentable weight. Specifically, Claims 1 and 9 do not require the identification of the current status that is indicative of the electronic device being actively in use by the user, but instead require the identifying of whether the current status is “one of actively in use by a user and delivered to the user but not yet in use by the user.” In other words, these claims may be practiced without identifying the current status as indicative of the electronic device being actively in in use by the user, either in the manner claimed in the limitation above or otherwise. See MPEP 2111.04 for more information. For the purposes of this examination, these limitations will be interpreted as if they were given patentable weight.
Claim 23 contains the following limitation: “requesting, by the client distributed server system and in response to the request of the exchange of electronic information by the electronic device, device user information to perform a verification of an authenticity of the electronic device.” In this limitation, the language “to perform a verification of an authenticity of the electronic device” constitutes intended use, and as such is not given patentable weight. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as if it were given patentable weight.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitations of monitoring shipping information that includes a delivery date for each electronic device of a first plurality of electronic devices, wherein the monitoring of the shipping information comprises: requesting the shipping information from the one or more servers; receiving, in response to one or more requests, the shipping information; accessing a device tracking database that includes a current status for each device of the first plurality of electronic devices; continuously monitoring for a communication of a request to exchange information by a variety of users; concurrently identifying, for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices, whether the current status indicates that the electronic device is one of actively in use by the user and delivered to the user but not yet in use by the user; wherein the identification of the current status that is indicative of the electronic device being actively in use by the user is performed based upon the continuous monitoring; wherein, in response to a performance of at least one employment-related task by the user using the at least one existing application, the communication of a request to exchange information is triggered; concurrently performing, for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices, no action with regards to a new status determination for each respective electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in response to the current status indicating that the electronic device is actively in use; concurrently comparing, for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices and in response to the current status indicating that the electronic device is delivered to the user but not yet in use by the user, a first amount of time as measured between the delivery date and a current time to a designated threshold amount of time; automatically assigning, depending upon the comparison, a new status in the device tracking database indicating the electronic device is inactive and requires attention to each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in response to the first amount of time being equal to or greater than the threshold amount of time; automatically performing, depending upon the comparison, no action with regards to the new status for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in response to the first amount of time being less than the threshold amount of time; wherein the respective new statuses for the plurality of electronic devices are automatically recorded in the device tracking database; and wherein the identifying, the comparing, and the assigning are performed concurrently for at least five hundred electronic devices of the first plurality of electronic devices within a time period of thirty minutes, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, these limitations fall at least within the enumerated categories of commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Additionally, the limitations of monitoring shipping information that includes a delivery date for each electronic device of a first plurality of electronic devices, wherein the monitoring of the shipping information comprises: requesting the shipping information from the one or more servers; receiving, in response to one or more requests, the shipping information; accessing a device tracking database that includes a current status for each device of the first plurality of electronic devices; continuously monitoring for a communication of a request to exchange information by a variety of users; concurrently identifying, for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices, whether the current status indicates that the electronic device is one of actively in use by the user and delivered to the user but not yet in use by the user; wherein the identification of the current status that is indicative of the electronic device being actively in use by the user is performed based upon the continuous monitoring; wherein, in response to a performance of at least one employment-related task by the user using the at least one existing application, the communication of a request to exchange information is triggered; concurrently performing, for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices, no action with regards to a new status determination for each respective electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in response to the current status indicating that the electronic device is actively in use; concurrently comparing, for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices and in response to the current status indicating that the electronic device is delivered to the user but not yet in use by the user, a first amount of time as measured between the delivery date and a current time to a designated threshold amount of time; automatically assigning, depending upon the comparison, a new status in the device tracking database indicating the electronic device is inactive and requires attention to each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in response to the first amount of time being equal to or greater than the threshold amount of time; automatically performing, depending upon the comparison, no action with regards to the new status for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in response to the first amount of time being less than the threshold amount of time; wherein the respective new statuses for the plurality of electronic devices are automatically recorded in the device tracking database; and wherein the identifying, the comparing, and the assigning are performed concurrently for at least five hundred electronic devices of the first plurality of electronic devices within a time period of thirty minutes, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes. For example, these limitations recite activity comprising observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Additionally, the limitations of concurrently comparing, for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices and in response to the current status indicating that the electronic device is delivered to the user but not yet in use by the user, a first amount of time as measured between the delivery date and a current time to a designated threshold amount of time; automatically assigning, depending upon the comparison, a new status in the device tracking database indicating the electronic device is inactive and requires attention to each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in response to the first amount of time being equal to or greater than the threshold amount of time; and automatically performing, depending upon the comparison, no action with regards to the new status for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in response to the first amount of time being less than the threshold amount of time, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts. For example, these limitations recite mathematical relationships and/or calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships, or managing interactions between people, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper but for recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, mathematical formulae or equations, or mathematical calculations, it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of each electronic device of a first plurality of electronic devices; electronic communication; establishing an electronic connection with one or more servers that include the shipping information; a device tracking database; a client distributed server system; a signal representative of a request for the exchange of electronic information with the client distributed server system being sent during use of the electronic device, said signal sent/triggered automatically by the electronic device; at least one existing application of the electronic device, without any application other than the at least one existing application being installed on the electronic device for provision of the signal; execution of computer-readable memory encoded with instructions; a device aging module that includes a computer processor; and electronic recording. Electronic communication, establishing an electronic connection with one or more servers that include the shipping information, a device tracking database, execution of computer-readable memory encoded with instructions, and a device aging module that includes a computer processor, and a client distributed server system, in the context of the claim as a whole, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Each electronic device of a first plurality of electronic devices and electronic recording; a signal representative of a request for the exchange of electronic information with the client distributed server system being sent during use of the electronic device, said signal sent/triggered automatically by the electronic device; and at least one existing application of the electronic device, without any application other than the at least one existing application being installed on the electronic device for provision of the signal, in the context of the claim as a whole, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not, individually or in combination, impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception, and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use for the same reasons as discussed above in relation to integration into a practical application. These cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-8 and 21-24, describing various additional limitations to the method of Claim 1, amount to substantially the same unintegrated abstract idea as Claim 1 (upon which these claims depend, directly or indirectly) and are rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 2 discloses wherein the threshold amount of time is designated as seven days (further narrows the abstract idea already set forth in Claim 1), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 3 discloses recording, upon obtaining the shipping information, the delivery date for each respective electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in the device tracking database (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and accessing the delivery date for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in the device tracking database (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 4 discloses providing, to a client, a device status report that includes the new status for each respective electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process) with the device status report being electronically communicated to the client (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 5 discloses wherein the device status report provided to the client includes at least a portion of the device tracking database (further narrows the abstract idea already set forth in Claim 4), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 6 discloses transmitting multiple requests for at least a portion of the shipping information (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process) via electronic communication (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception); and receiving, by the device aging module, at least a portion of the shipping information in response to each request (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 7 discloses wherein the step of transmitting multiple requests for at least a portion of the shipping information includes implementing an application programming interface to format and transmit the request (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 21 discloses requesting, in response to the assignment of the new status indicating the electronic device is inactive and requires attention, a further exchange of electronic information with the electronic device by the client distributed server system, the further exchange being separate from the exchange of electronic information requested by the electronic device, wherein the request is dependent upon device user information (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 22 discloses providing, by the client distributed server system and in response to the signal representative of the request for the exchange of electronic information, a request for device user information from the electronic device (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 23 discloses requesting, by the client distributed server system and in response to the request of the exchange of electronic information by the electronic device, device user information to perform a verification of an authenticity of the electronic device (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and wherein the identification that the electronic device is actively in use by the user is performed after the verification of the authenticity of the electronic device (further defining the abstract idea already set forth in Claim 1), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 24 discloses wherein the electronic device further triggers, in response to an initiation of operation of the electronic device by the user, a second automatic request of the exchange of electronic information with the client distributed server system, in addition to the automatic provision of the signal recited in claim 1 (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 9, the limitations of monitoring shipping information that includes a shipment date and an indication that package tracking information is not available for each electronic device of a first plurality of electronic devices; wherein the monitoring of the shipping information comprises: requesting the shipping information from the one or more servers; receiving, in response to one or more requests, the shipping information; accessing a device tracking database that includes a current status for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices; continuously monitoring for a communication of a request to exchange information by a variety of users; concurrently identifying, for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices, whether the current status indicates that the electronic device is one of actively in use by the user and in the process of being shipped to the user; wherein the identification of the current status that is indicative of the electronic device being actively in use by the user is performed based upon the continuous monitoring; wherein, in response to a performance of at least one employment-related task by the user using the at least one existing application, the communication of a request to exchange information is triggered; concurrently performing, for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices, no action with regards to a new status determination for each respective electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in response to the current status indicating that the electronic device is actively in use; concurrently comparing, for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices and in response to the current status indicating that the electronic device is in the process of being shipped to the user, a first amount of time as measured between the shipment date and a current time to a designated threshold amount of time; automatically assigning, depending upon the comparison, a new status to the device tracking database indicating the electronic device is inactive and requires attention for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in response to the first amount of time being equal to or greater than the threshold amount of time; automatically performing, depending upon the comparison, no action with regards to the new status for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in response to the first amount of time being less than the threshold amount of time; and wherein the identifying, the comparing, and the assigning are performed concurrently for at least five hundred electronic devices of the first plurality of electronic devices within a time period of thirty minutes, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, these limitations fall at least within the enumerated categories of commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Additionally, the limitations of monitoring shipping information that includes a shipment date and an indication that package tracking information is not available for each electronic device of a first plurality of electronic devices; wherein the monitoring of the shipping information comprises: requesting the shipping information from the one or more servers; receiving, in response to one or more requests, the shipping information; accessing a device tracking database that includes a current status for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices; continuously monitoring for a communication of a request to exchange information by a variety of users; concurrently identifying, for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices, whether the current status indicates that the electronic device is one of actively in use by the user and in the process of being shipped to the user; wherein the identification of the current status that is indicative of the electronic device being actively in use by the user is performed based upon the continuous monitoring; wherein, in response to a performance of at least one employment-related task by the user using the at least one existing application, the communication of a request to exchange information is triggered; concurrently performing, for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices, no action with regards to a new status determination for each respective electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in response to the current status indicating that the electronic device is actively in use; concurrently comparing, for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices and in response to the current status indicating that the electronic device is in the process of being shipped to the user, a first amount of time as measured between the shipment date and a current time to a designated threshold amount of time; automatically assigning, depending upon the comparison, a new status to the device tracking database indicating the electronic device is inactive and requires attention for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in response to the first amount of time being equal to or greater than the threshold amount of time; automatically performing, depending upon the comparison, no action with regards to the new status for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in response to the first amount of time being less than the threshold amount of time; and wherein the identifying, the comparing, and the assigning are performed concurrently for at least five hundred electronic devices of the first plurality of electronic devices within a time period of thirty minutes, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes. For example, these limitations recite activity comprising observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Additionally, the limitations of concurrently identifying, for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices, whether the current status indicates that the electronic device is one of actively in use by a user and in the process of being shipped to the user; concurrently comparing, for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices and in response to the current status indicating that the electronic device is in the process of being shipped to the user, a first amount of time as measured between the shipment date and a current time to a designated threshold amount of time; automatically assigning, depending upon the comparison, a new status to the device tracking database indicating the electronic device is inactive and requires attention for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in response to the first amount of time being equal to or greater than the threshold amount of time; and automatically performing, depending upon the comparison, no action with regards to the new status for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in response to the first amount of time being less than the threshold amount of time, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts. For example, these limitations recite mathematical relationships and/or calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships, or managing interactions between people, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper but for recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, mathematical formulae or equations, or mathematical calculations, it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of each electronic device of a first plurality of electronic devices; electronic communication; establishing an electronic connection with one or more servers that include the shipping information; a device tracking database; a client distributed server system; a signal representative of a request for the exchange of electronic information with the client distributed server system being sent during use of the electronic device, said signal sent/triggered automatically by the electronic device; at least one existing application of the electronic device, without any application other than the at least one existing application being installed on the electronic device for provision of the signal; execution of computer-readable memory encoded with instructions; a device aging module that includes a computer processor; and electronic recording. Electronic communication, establishing an electronic connection with one or more servers that include the shipping information, a device tracking database, execution of computer-readable memory encoded with instructions, and a device aging module that includes a computer processor, and a client distributed server system, in the context of the claim as a whole, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Each electronic device of a first plurality of electronic devices and electronic recording; a signal representative of a request for the exchange of electronic information with the client distributed server system being sent during use of the electronic device, said signal sent/triggered automatically by the electronic device; and at least one existing application of the electronic device, without any application other than the at least one existing application being installed on the electronic device for provision of the signal, in the context of the claim as a whole, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not, individually or in combination, impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception, and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use for the same reasons as discussed above in relation to integration into a practical application. These cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 10-14 and 25-26, describing various additional limitations to the method of Claim 9, amount to substantially the same unintegrated abstract idea as Claim 9 (upon which these claims depend, directly or indirectly) and are rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 10 discloses wherein the shipping information further includes a shipping method for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices (further narrows the abstract idea already set forth in Claim 9) and the threshold amount of time is twelve days if the shipping method for the electronic device is one of priority, next-day, and two-day shipping and seventeen days if the shipping method is not one of priority, next-day, and two-day shipping (further narrows the abstract idea already set forth in Claim 9), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 11 discloses recording, upon receiving the shipping information, the shipment date and the indication that the package tracking information is not available for each respective electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in the device tracking database (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and accessing the shipment date and indication that the package tracking information is not available for each electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices in the device tracking database (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 12 discloses providing, to a client, a device status report that includes the new status for each respective electronic device of the first plurality of electronic devices with the device status report being electronically communicated to the client (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 13 discloses wherein the new status indicating the electronic device is inactive and requires attention is In Use Attention Required (further narrows the abstract idea already set forth in Claim 9), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 14 discloses wherein the first plurality of devices includes at least one thousand devices (further narrows the abstract idea already set forth in Claim 9) and the device aging module identifies whether the current status indicates that the electronic device is one of actively in use by the user and in the process of being shipped to the user during a time period of thirty minutes (further narrows the abstract idea already set forth in Claim 9), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 25 discloses requesting, in response to the assignment of the new status indicating the electronic device is inactive and requires attention, a further exchange of electronic information with the electronic device by the client distributed server system, the further exchange being separate from the exchange of electronic information requested by the electronic device, wherein the request for the further exchange is dependent upon device user information (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 26 discloses wherein the electronic device further triggers, in response to an initiation of operation of the electronic device by the user, a second automatic request of the exchange of electronic information with the client distributed server system, in addition to the automatic provision of the signal recited in claim 9 (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Discussion of Prior Art Cited but Not Applied
For additional information on the state of the art regarding the claims of the present application, please see the following documents not applied in this Office Action (all of which are prior art to the present application):
PGPub 20180165635 – “Systems and Methods for Predictive In-Transit Shipment Delivery Exception Notification and Automated Resolution,” Modica et al, disclosing a system for requesting, receiving, updating, and analyzing shipment-based status of assets, including taking actions based on an expected status update time being exceeded by a specified amount
PGPub 20100138355 – “Next Generation Visibility Package Tracking,” Kodger, Jr., disclosing a system for requesting, receiving, updating, and analyzing shipment-based status of assets, including taking actions based on an expected status update failing to occur within a date and time frame
PGPub 20150356497 – “Methods and Apparatus for Monitoring and Control of Electronic Devices,” Reeder et al, disclosing a system for inventory tracking and management, including the locations of various devices and the activation and addition of new devices to the system
PGPub 20220305202 – “Cloud-Connected Ambulatory Pump Integration,” Rosinko et al, disclosing a system for tracking and managing the status, activity, repair, and replacement of personal medical devices across a plurality of users
PGPub 20210241225 – “Systems and Methods for Electronic Inventory and Return Item Reconciliation,” Rehn et al, disclosing a system for tracking and managing a plurality of shipped packages, including return and reconciliation of shipped items
PGPub 20210224727 – “Asset Management,” Rakhunde et al, disclosing a system for tracking the statuses of a plurality of mechanical and electronic devices, including in terms of location, repair (and need thereof), condition, certification, etc.
PGPub 20210019837 – “Multi-User Audit System, Method, and Techniques,” Watson, disclosing a system for allowing management and tracking of the status of various business assets over the course of their useful lives
PGPub 20240211871 – “Use of a Single SKU for Product Through Life Cycle,” Ramirez et al, disclosing a system for tracking the statuses (e.g., location, stock, whether sold or not) of inventory items and the components thereof
Dutta et al, A Tracking Solution of IT Assets and Resource Management, Int’l Journal of Mathematics and Computer Research, Vol. 10, Issue 7 (July 2022), disclosing techniques for enterprise-based asset tracking and management
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK C CLARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-2:30pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARK C CLARE/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights